It was called "Need A Collection Textbooks To Use As Stepping Stones to QFT" In my mind, asking about a "no-nonsense intro to QFT" and asking for a set of textbooks together which would prepare one to even read a QFT intro, from the position of only having completed Griffith's Introduction to QM, are two completely different things. QMechanic even admitted to it not being a true duplicate, but closed it anyway, and I really don't buy his explanation of it being "opinion based", since the thread that I was supposedly duplicating should also have been "opinion based".

  • 7
    $\begingroup$ The problem with prerequisistes for QFT in a nutshell, courtesy of Abstruse Goose. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jan 7 '16 at 17:17
  • $\begingroup$ A quote from your question: "I have taken the time to read through many different questions on the subject, and I have come to the conclusion that none of them address my needs." I suspect then that your 'need' cannot be addressed to your satisfaction. $\endgroup$ – Alfred Centauri Jan 8 '16 at 0:21

I didn't close it as duplicate, I closed it as being too broad.

Our book recommendations policy is rather strict (see this answer and this answer), and your question doesn't ask for a single book for QFT (which would already be quite broad), but also for a series of books preparing you for it. This is more study advice than a recommendation of a book for a specific topic, because you are not searching for a resource containing a defined topic, but you are asking the answerers to come up with the specific topic you must learn to begin with.

Therefore, the question is very broad - the recommended resources in one answer could even be about different topic that those in another.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ And yet it was marked as a duplicate, and I was linked to a useless thread... Is there no appropriate outlet for such a question? Yes it seems you guys are strict, but it's an unfortunate policy, that someone should need to have an exact resource in mind before asking about it. I don't see the use in it. $\endgroup$ – SSD Jan 7 '16 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ And I should clarify, one reason that I don't see use in such a policy is that you might think you'd be inundated with questions. But the truth is, no potential offenders would read such a policy anyway. The difference being, after a couple of successful threads, you could link people to "duplicate" threads and not be lying. $\endgroup$ – SSD Jan 7 '16 at 14:23
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I had the same question as SSD about a year ago, as an undergrad that wanted to get from Griffiths to Peskin. Several friends of mine had the same issue too. So I feel "stepping stone to QFT from undergrad physics" is actually quite a common question, which may deserve a canonical answer. It's not even that broad, because "undergrad physics" is quite standardized. For example, undergrads will have to get comfortable with tensors, learn some classical field theory, learn the representation theory of the Poincare/Lorentz group, etc. $\endgroup$ – knzhou Jan 7 '16 at 16:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @knzhou, From Griffith's to Peskin $\endgroup$ – Alfred Centauri Jan 8 '16 at 1:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yeah, this is the link that helped me the most last year! I also sent it to @SSD. $\endgroup$ – knzhou Jan 8 '16 at 1:51
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks guys! This looks pretty good. I will try to work through Griffith's elementary particles then. $\endgroup$ – SSD Jan 8 '16 at 2:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SSD As for being marked as duplicate, I think this comment is relevant. $\endgroup$ – user10851 Jan 8 '16 at 5:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .